Inventory crafting

[BigBallinStalin]

Two problems:
If you can simply produce/craft your own stars, then the supply of stars will increase. Also, the supply will no longer be totally controlled by CC's random star generator; therefore, (A) CC loses much control over the supply of stars, and (B) Star Inflation would occur.


Possible consequences:
1. Inflation won't matter if tourney, entry prices are increased accordingly (good luck with that trial-and-error).

However,
1b. Raising tourney prices will price out those who forego the star-crafting craze. This could be considered unfair to some. (bad)
1c. In turn, higher tourney prices may induce more to join the star-crafting craze, thus further increasing the supply of stars. Star Hyperinflation, perhaps? (bad)

2. More chances of creating more stars gives people greater chances to join the star-priced tourneys, (good)

2b. unless the price of tourneys is increased (see 1b-1c)
2c. If more people can join the tourneys by creating their own stars, then they may be more incentivized to forego those plans which yielded them the randomly generated stars. For example, "why do X,Y, and Z to get the Orange Star when I can take the cheaper route of creating it?" (transfer. CC loses control to the Star-Crafters).

3. The 'Cooler'/rarer stars will fall in value because the overall chances of acquiring them have increased (unless the Rare Star X recipe was randomized).

(transfer)--i.e. people who got the Rare Stars without crafting may feel jipped, yet people who crafted the Rare Stars will feel great).

4. Given enough inflation, the whole point of the Star System may collapse. For example, if anyone can get into the star-priced tourneys, then those tourneys become no different than non-priced tourneys. May as well drop the star prices.


5. Given enough inflation, all the stars become valueless (since nearly everyone who cares will have the ones they want). The only value to the Star System would be the production of stars itself, but not the stars themselves. (good for star crafters, bad for CC if they had more useful plans for the Star System).


Solutions:

A. Prohibit the crafting of stars, and let CC continue managing prices and production (easier to control).
B. Enable star-crafting and create plenty of rules and ad-hoc measures to control the inflation (difficult to control).
C. Enable star-crafting and ignore consequences (good luck).
D. Enable star-crafting and enable Star Exchanges.


If D, the supply and demand of various types of stars would become self-regulated, but the outcomes should be assessed:

People value stars because (a) they enjoy hoarding them, (b) they enjoy spending them, and (c) they enjoy creating them. If CC controls the prices on tourneys, then the Star Exchange won't function properly. Fun times with (b). The Star Exchange will speed up the circulation and production of stars. If people can keep pumping out stars, then (c) happens and (a) happens, but overall the stars become less and less valuable as more are created, so (a) decreases if the value of stars is tied to their rareness, thus (c) may fall for some and rise for others. Without the Star Exchange, these outcomes are likely, since the star exchange would only speed up the circulation of stars.

There will always be madmen star-crafters building stars for the sake of building stars. Eventually, however, the marginal costs of producing stars will equal the marginal benefits, so the market for rent-seeking star-crafters will be satisfied. Others, less so.

E.Prohibit star-crafting, enable Star Exchange.

With the supply of stars under CC's control, concerns over inflation lessen, and (a) and (b) increase. You may get problems with more people joining star-priced tourneys (shucks), but it won't be as nearly as a big headache as star-crafting.

Opinion:
If CC planned anything more useful for the Star System, then go with (A). If not, then CC would have to figure out how to (1) control the supply of various stars from the crafters and (2) constantly change the rules so that surpluses and shortages aren't created.


(A) = easy path
(B) = headache
(C) = lol
(D) = headache
(E) = uncertain of costs to implement, but the people will like it since the exchanges are mutually beneficial. CC also retains control over stars.


(Another alternative is to let people use stars to make bets).

[Metsfanmax]

Two problems:
If you can simply produce/craft your own stars, then the supply of stars will increase. Also, the supply will no longer be totally controlled by CC's random star generator; therefore, (A) CC loses much control over the supply of stars, and (B) Star Inflation would occur.

This isn't about producing new stars from nothing. It's about allowing you to craft existing stars into new stars. As long as the conversion rates are approximately proportional to the rarity of each star (which is intended to be a proxy for its value), then the system should maintain the same worth it has now (just like exchanging two $5 bills for a $10 bill doesn't inflate the system).

[DoomYoshi]

Two problems:
If you can simply produce/craft your own stars, then the supply of stars will increase. Also, the supply will no longer be totally controlled by CC's random star generator; therefore, (A) CC loses much control over the supply of stars, and (B) Star Inflation would occur.

This isn't about producing new stars. It's about allowing you to craft existing stars into new stars. As long as the conversion rates are approximately proportional to the rarity of each star (which is intended to be a proxy for its value), then the system should maintain the same worth it has now (just like exchanging two $5 bills for a $10 bill doesn't inflate the system).

I imagine different activities give different values.

Logging on might make blue stars have infinite value while playing Battle Royales might make drab stars have 0 value. Right now the system isn't transparent enough to tell.

[Metsfanmax]

Two problems:
If you can simply produce/craft your own stars, then the supply of stars will increase. Also, the supply will no longer be totally controlled by CC's random star generator; therefore, (A) CC loses much control over the supply of stars, and (B) Star Inflation would occur.

This isn't about producing new stars. It's about allowing you to craft existing stars into new stars. As long as the conversion rates are approximately proportional to the rarity of each star (which is intended to be a proxy for its value), then the system should maintain the same worth it has now (just like exchanging two $5 bills for a $10 bill doesn't inflate the system).

I imagine different activities give different values.

Logging on might make blue stars have infinite value while playing Battle Royales might make drab stars have 0 value. Right now the system isn't transparent enough to tell.

Sure, but we're talking about whether the crafting uniquely results in system inflation. Other sources of inflation or deflation may serve to make BBS's argument mostly irrelevant, though.

[DoomYoshi]

Right, so if there isn't a simple sliding scale and there are different values for every activity then there is no standard valuation and so it doesn't matter if there is inflation.

I follow that. If there is a simple sliding scale* and a standard value, then you say the inflation doesn't matter, but I say it does, and I choose to switch analogies. A red star is like a mint condition Spider-Man 300. You can get a reprint, and those don't lower the value of the original but if there is no way of telling if it is original or not, then the value drops, as the value is not based on how much paper is used, but rather how rare it is.

*a simple sliding system would have one big score list e.g. drab 1-10 auburn 11-20 etc. logging on gives you one roll, but joining a game lets you roll 2 dice, wining a game lets you roll 3 dice, so the odds don't change proportional to each other, just to the activity.
a variable system is drab 1-5 auburn 6-10 electric 11-15 for logging on; drab 1-3, auburn 4-12; electric 13-15 for joining - there is no way that this can be a sliding scale.

[Metsfanmax]

I follow that. If there is a simple sliding scale* and a standard value, then you say the inflation doesn't matter, but I say it does, and I choose to switch analogies. A red star is like a mint condition Spider-Man 300. You can get a reprint, and those don't lower the value of the original but if there is no way of telling if it is original or not, then the value drops, as the value is not based on how much paper is used, but rather how rare it is.

The value of the red star is based only on one thing: how hard it is to get (alternatively, what it can be used for). So all you need to do is tune the number of drab stars it takes to turn into a red star so that it requires about the same amount of investment to get the red star either through crafting or through winning it. There is surely some turning point above which the number of drab stars required to make a red star is not viable because those drab stars could be used to achieve some better end. You would then set the conversation rate to be about equal to that turning point.

[DoomYoshi]

That's not a fair comparison. How many medal stats checkings is worth winning the conquer cup? How could you even answer that in terms of difficulty? You can only answer it in terms of probability. Which brings me back to the probabilities of 0 and infinity (which may or may not exist). How can you evaluate something like this?

[BigBallinStalin]

Two problems:
If you can simply produce/craft your own stars, then the supply of stars will increase. Also, the supply will no longer be totally controlled by CC's random star generator; therefore, (A) CC loses much control over the supply of stars, and (B) Star Inflation would occur.

This isn't about producing new stars from nothing. It's about allowing you to craft existing stars into new stars. As long as the conversion rates are approximately proportional to the rarity of each star (which is intended to be a proxy for its value), then the system should maintain the same worth it has now (just like exchanging two $5 bills for a $10 bill doesn't inflate the system).

Doesn't the rarity of each star change as more conversions are made?

If so, then CC would have to figure out how to (1) control the supply of various stars from the crafters by constantly changing the rules/conversion rates. Sounds like a headache.

[BigBallinStalin]

Two problems:
If you can simply produce/craft your own stars, then the supply of stars will increase. Also, the supply will no longer be totally controlled by CC's random star generator; therefore, (A) CC loses much control over the supply of stars, and (B) Star Inflation would occur.

This isn't about producing new stars. It's about allowing you to craft existing stars into new stars. As long as the conversion rates are approximately proportional to the rarity of each star (which is intended to be a proxy for its value), then the system should maintain the same worth it has now (just like exchanging two $5 bills for a $10 bill doesn't inflate the system).

I imagine different activities give different values.

Logging on might make blue stars have infinite value while playing Battle Royales might make drab stars have 0 value. Right now the system isn't transparent enough to tell.

Sure, but we're talking about whether the crafting uniquely results in system inflation. Other sources of inflation or deflation may serve to make BBS's argument mostly irrelevant, though.

Unless of course you can find an exploit like DY is doing, and then convert those stars into more valuable stars, which in turn increases the supply of those particular stars (while decreasing the supply of the exploited stars). On net, you might get zero inflation, but that would ignore the changes in quantities of each star.

[Metsfanmax]

That's not a fair comparison. How many medal stats checkings is worth winning the conquer cup? How could you even answer that in terms of difficulty? You can only answer it in terms of probability. Which brings me back to the probabilities of 0 and infinity (which may or may not exist). How can you evaluate something like this?

Probability and difficulty are the same thing in this context. The point here is that each star has some conversion factor in terms of all the other stars with respect to value, whether or not we allow that conversion to occur. There's no way to say what that relative value is in general, because the usage of stars will change with time (they may be useful for more than just entering tournaments at some point). But we don't have to evaluate this by looking at the methods by which the stars are earned. All we have to do is look at the total number of each of these stars in the total player pool, and that automatically determines the appropriate conversion rate. If there are 1000 auburn stars and two red stars owned by the population, then that suggests that a red star is about 500 times harder to obtain than an auburn star, and so that should be the conversion rate.

[BigBallinStalin]

I follow that. If there is a simple sliding scale* and a standard value, then you say the inflation doesn't matter, but I say it does, and I choose to switch analogies. A red star is like a mint condition Spider-Man 300. You can get a reprint, and those don't lower the value of the original but if there is no way of telling if it is original or not, then the value drops, as the value is not based on how much paper is used, but rather how rare it is.

The value of the red star is based only on one thing: how hard it is to get (alternatively, what it can be used for). So all you need to do is tune the number of drab stars it takes to turn into a red star so that it requires about the same amount of investment to get the red star either through crafting or through winning it.

Suppose the investment of obtaining a red star is 20 minutes.
Now, suppose the investment of crafting a red star is 20 minutes.

In a world without star-crafting, it takes 20 minutes to get a red star, and there is only one way to do so.
In a world with star-crafting, it takes 20 minutes to get a red star, but there are two ways to do so.


What assumptions are you using to conclude that having two ways to get a red star would result in the same amount of red stars, thereby not altering the value of the red star?

(if star-crafting took 10 minutes, then more red stars would be created, and its value would drop).

There is surely some turning point above which the number of drab stars required to make a red star is not viable because those drab stars could be used to achieve some better end. You would then set the conversation rate to be about equal to that turning point.

But you'd have to find the conversation rate for a multitude of ends--namely, (a) hoarding, (b) spending, and (c) creating.

1. How will you uncover the conversation rate for each?
2. How will you know which end is more valued for x-amount of users? (in order to weight the conversion rates)
2. And then... you average the rates? (and get a solution which doesn't really solve the problem)


If y'all had a Star Exchange, you'd already have some data to determine to the conversion rates.

[Metsfanmax]

I follow that. If there is a simple sliding scale* and a standard value, then you say the inflation doesn't matter, but I say it does, and I choose to switch analogies. A red star is like a mint condition Spider-Man 300. You can get a reprint, and those don't lower the value of the original but if there is no way of telling if it is original or not, then the value drops, as the value is not based on how much paper is used, but rather how rare it is.

The value of the red star is based only on one thing: how hard it is to get (alternatively, what it can be used for). So all you need to do is tune the number of drab stars it takes to turn into a red star so that it requires about the same amount of investment to get the red star either through crafting or through winning it.

Suppose the investment of obtaining a red star is 20 minutes.
Now, suppose the investment of crafting a red star is 20 minutes.

In a world without star-crafting, it takes 20 minutes to get a red star, and there is only one way to do so.
In a world with star-crafting, it takes 20 minutes to get a red star, but there are two ways to do so.


What assumptions are you using to conclude that having two ways to get a red star would result in the same amount of red stars, thereby not altering the value of the red star?

(if star-crafting took 10 minutes, then more red stars would be created, and its value would drop).

The investment in crafting isn't a time investment; it's a resource investment. You have to trade existing stars to get different color stars. The argument isn't that the number of red stars stays fixed; it's that the value of a red star stays fixed. This is possible because you also attach some value to the stars you had to trade in to get the red star, and a properly designed system would have the total value of those stars you cashed in be approximately equal to the value of the red star. (Although value is obviously different to different people, hence the more general probabilities framework outlined in the above post.).

If y'all had a Star Exchange, you'd already have some data to determine to the conversion rates.

The star exchange is not mutually exclusive with the crafting.

[DoomYoshi]

If there are 1000 auburn stars and two red stars owned by the population, then that suggests that a red star is about 500 times harder to obtain than an auburn star, and so that should be the conversion rate.

Unless auburn stars are used to enter tournaments but red stars are not. We would have to know how many are awarded total.

Which comes back to the question of... what is the point of having a red star if one can be crafted?

[BigBallinStalin]

I follow that. If there is a simple sliding scale* and a standard value, then you say the inflation doesn't matter, but I say it does, and I choose to switch analogies. A red star is like a mint condition Spider-Man 300. You can get a reprint, and those don't lower the value of the original but if there is no way of telling if it is original or not, then the value drops, as the value is not based on how much paper is used, but rather how rare it is.

The value of the red star is based only on one thing: how hard it is to get (alternatively, what it can be used for). So all you need to do is tune the number of drab stars it takes to turn into a red star so that it requires about the same amount of investment to get the red star either through crafting or through winning it.

Suppose the investment of obtaining a red star is 20 minutes.
Now, suppose the investment of crafting a red star is 20 minutes.

In a world without star-crafting, it takes 20 minutes to get a red star, and there is only one way to do so.
In a world with star-crafting, it takes 20 minutes to get a red star, but there are two ways to do so.


What assumptions are you using to conclude that having two ways to get a red star would result in the same amount of red stars, thereby not altering the value of the red star?

(if star-crafting took 10 minutes, then more red stars would be created, and its value would drop).

The investment in crafting isn't a time investment; it's a resource investment. You have to trade existing stars to get different color stars. The argument isn't that the number of red stars stays fixed; it's that the value of a red star stays fixed. This is possible because you also attach some value to the stars you had to trade in to get the red star, and a properly designed system would have the total value of those stars you cashed in be approximately equal to the value of the red star. (Although value is obviously different to different people, hence the more general probabilities framework outlined in the above post.).

When people spend time doing something, it's presumed by many that they're doing something.

It doesn't matter if the value of lower stars is decreasing because we're only talking about the value of the red star.

Obviously, if you open more opportunities for people to invest their time into getting a red star, then more red stars will be acquired, thus the value of red stars will decline. Your solution in bold will fail because you've opened a second route toward obtaining that star (unless of course you make the conversion rate so high that no one can craft a red star).


Good luck with that conversion system:
You'd have to find the conversation rate for a multitude of ends--namely, (a) hoarding, (b) spending, and (c) creating.

1. How will you uncover the conversation rate for each?
2. How will you know which end is more valued for x-amount of users? (in order to weight the conversion rates)
3. And then... you average the rates? (and get a solution which doesn't really solve the problem)
4. Then update 1-3 every x-times a month or year, so that it's accurate, thus not wreaking hell on the supply of stars.
5. ?????
6. HEADACHE

This suggestion is becoming more trouble than it's worth.

[BigBallinStalin]

If y'all had a Star Exchange, you'd already have some data to determine to the conversion rates.

The star exchange is not mutually exclusive with the crafting.

Looks like the Star Exchange is a necessary first step.

[Metsfanmax]

If there are 1000 auburn stars and two red stars owned by the population, then that suggests that a red star is about 500 times harder to obtain than an auburn star, and so that should be the conversion rate.

Unless auburn stars are used to enter tournaments but red stars are not. We would have to know how many are awarded total.

OK, that's a fair point. Problem is that because there are multiple types of stars, and you can enter tournaments with some but get others, that it's hard to de-conflate these effects.

Which comes back to the question of... what is the point of having a red star if one can be crafted?

Having a red star represents a very rare achievement, and earning 500 auburn stars (or whatever the actual conversion rate is) is a similar feat.

It doesn't matter if the value of lower stars is decreasing because we're only talking about the value of the red star.

Obviously, if you open more opportunities for people to invest their time into getting a red star, then more red stars will be acquired, thus the value of red stars will decline. Your solution in bold will fail because you've opened a second route toward obtaining that star (unless of course you make the conversion rate so high that no one can craft a red star).

You can't talk about the value of the red star independent of the value of the other stars (in the crafting system), just as you could not talk about the value of a $20 bill independent of the value of $5 bills. The value is a function of how easy it is to get a red star, and in the ideal crafting system it isn't any easier to get. The fact that there are multiple avenues to do so doesn't matter.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sure,

(1) assuming you've overcome the issue of discovering the conversion rates (good luck), which will have to be constantly updated to reflect the proper values (good luck),

(2) assuming people place a proportional value on drab stars and red stars (I doubt it, and given the problems of #1, I doubt the rules will properly reflect every single person's different valuations).

The value in red stars can easily fall because these assumptions can easily fail to hold. And so, you'll get the problems of shortages and surpluses for each star, and CC loses more control over the creation of stars (since people will be converting them).


The star-crafting program is becoming a greater headache for CC. I see the rent-seekers pushing for it, but the flimsy assumptions will likely not mitigate the consequences. What y'all need is to get a Star Exchange working ahead of time. That way, prices for each star and between each star will emerge. From this, you can gather the conversion rates--without having to sit in your chair and guess what they may be. Can we stop entertaining fanciful notions of central planning for creating conversion rates*?

*conversion rates are prices.

[Metsfanmax]

Sure,

(1) assuming you've overcome the issue of discovering the conversion rates (good luck), which will have to be constantly updated to reflect the proper values (good luck),

(2) assuming people place a proportional value on drab stars and red stars (I doubt it, and given the problems of #1, I doubt the rules will properly reflect every single person's different valuations).

The value in red stars can easily fall because these assumptions can easily fail to hold. And so, you'll get the problems of shortages and surpluses for each star, and CC loses more control over the creation of stars (since people will be converting them).

This problem is equally inherent to the Star Exchange, if it exists. The value of a red star, at present, is determined by the fact that you can't just get it with a concrete set of steps. It requires an actual investment of skill and time, coupled with some luck in winning the games. It's valuable because it's very hard to get, and very unlikely to get. If we open up the star exchange, and people start trading the red stars for other stars, then the value immediately falls because anyone can get it through much easier actions that require no skill and no time investment (like logging in every day).

Anyway, the star exchange discussion belongs in another thread.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sure,

(1) assuming you've overcome the issue of discovering the conversion rates (good luck), which will have to be constantly updated to reflect the proper values (good luck),

(2) assuming people place a proportional value on drab stars and red stars (I doubt it, and given the problems of #1, I doubt the rules will properly reflect every single person's different valuations).

The value in red stars can easily fall because these assumptions can easily fail to hold. And so, you'll get the problems of shortages and surpluses for each star, and CC loses more control over the creation of stars (since people will be converting them).

This problem is equally inherent to the Star Exchange, if it exists. The value of a red star, at present, is determined by the fact that you can't just get it with a concrete set of steps. It requires an actual investment of skill and time, coupled with some luck in winning the games. It's valuable because it's very hard to get, and very unlikely to get. If we open up the star exchange, and people start trading the red stars for other stars, then the value immediately falls because anyone can get it through much easier actions that require no skill and no time investment (like logging in every day).

Anyway, the star exchange discussion belongs in another thread.

Actually, you don't know the market value of a red star until it becomes exchangeable. The 'problems' of star-crafting differ from the Star Exchange because exchange tends toward a general expression of the valuations which people place on various goods. That expression is called prices. With star-crafting, you're centrally planning conversion rates based on inadequate information and a complete ignorance of people's valuations. Obviously, exchange differs from production, so "This problem is equally inherent to the Star Exchange" is false. In short, you're making stuff up in order to jam it into an allegedly definite consequence. Stop it.

Exchange itself is swapping. You don't produce more of something, so you won't get a change in the supply. Production is just the conversion of inputs into outputs (like star-crafting). That's how you get more red stars. If people can trade stars, then the prices can go either way. So far we have no prices, so your made-up stuff isn't based on anything substantive. If there's a problem with people producing too many red stars (with the intent of exchanging them), then CC can lower its chance of them randomly appearing. Nevertheless, if there's star-crafting, CC has to exert control through two routes--with the latter being much more difficult, especially in the absence of prices. Maybe this clears up your misunderstanding about production, exchange, prices, and planning.

Nevertheless, we do know that if you enable star-crafting, then this would create more stars, thereby lowering their value (to what it otherwise would have been). Without prices, you'll get inflation--something which you ignore and have not reasonably dismissed. If you have a Star Exchange, you can figure out a good proxy for the conversion rates. and that's the main point of Star Exchange, which you've been missing. Hopefully I've belabored this enough, and I don't have to keep repeating myself to you.

[BigBallinStalin]

The remaining points still stand. This suggestion is awesome, but depending on what CC had in mind with the Star System and even if they're willing to constantly monitor and change rules for star-crafting (e.g. constantly updating conversion rates), then you're going to have a lot of problems with star-crafting.

it should be noted that many of the problems go away if a Star Exchange is established first.

[Metsfanmax]

Nevertheless, we do know that if you enable star-crafting, then this would create more stars,

I get the feeling that you're misunderstanding the star-crafting system. If anything, star-crafting would decrease the equilibrium number of stars, because you'd trade in multiple bad stars for better stars. There's no way that it could create more stars.

[BigBallinStalin]

Nevertheless, we do know that if you enable star-crafting, then this would create more stars,

I get the feeling that you're misunderstanding the star-crafting system. If anything, star-crafting would decrease the equilibrium number of stars, because you'd trade in multiple bad stars for better stars. There's no way that it could create more stars.

And what happens to the supply of better stars? It somehow... decreases right? (No, so we should agree on this).

I'm not talking about stars on net. I'm talking about the equilirbrium of each star--not all stars. Again, inflation on net could be zero or negative, but this overlooks the fact that there's inflation in some stars and deflation for others. So, with deflation/inflation going on, you'd still get my list of consequences (deflation flips the relationship between x and y, i.e. it could inverse the relationships, but there's no need for me to clarify those relationships because the conclusion remains the same: problems will ensure).

[Metsfanmax]

Nevertheless, we do know that if you enable star-crafting, then this would create more stars,

I get the feeling that you're misunderstanding the star-crafting system. If anything, star-crafting would decrease the equilibrium number of stars, because you'd trade in multiple bad stars for better stars. There's no way that it could create more stars.

And what happens to the supply of better stars? It somehow... decreases right? (No, so we should agree on this).

I'm not talking about stars on net. I'm talking about the equilirbrium of each star--not all stars. Again, inflation on net could be zero or negative, but this overlooks the fact that there's inflation in some stars and deflation for others. So, with deflation/inflation going on, you'd still get my list of consequences (deflation flips the relationship between x and y, i.e. it could inverse the relationships, but there's no need for me to clarify those relationships because the conclusion remains the same: problems will ensure).

I don't think it's obvious that the equilibrium for each star will significantly change with time. For example, a red star is useless for entering an 8 player autotournament, and if that's how I really want to spend my stars, I may just cash in the red star for 1000 auburn stars.

[AndyDufresne]

I barely understand real markets, let alone madeup star markets. Junk.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

Nevertheless, we do know that if you enable star-crafting, then this would create more stars,

I get the feeling that you're misunderstanding the star-crafting system. If anything, star-crafting would decrease the equilibrium number of stars, because you'd trade in multiple bad stars for better stars. There's no way that it could create more stars.

And what happens to the supply of better stars? It somehow... decreases right? (No, so we should agree on this).

I'm not talking about stars on net. I'm talking about the equilirbrium of each star--not all stars. Again, inflation on net could be zero or negative, but this overlooks the fact that there's inflation in some stars and deflation for others. So, with deflation/inflation going on, you'd still get my list of consequences (deflation flips the relationship between x and y, i.e. it could inverse the relationships, but there's no need for me to clarify those relationships because the conclusion remains the same: problems will ensure).

I don't think it's obvious that the equilibrium for each star will significantly change with time. For example, a red star is useless for entering an 8 player autotournament, and if that's how I really want to spend my stars, I may just cash in the red star for 1000 auburn stars.

The problem is that we have no idea what the future prices will be because we don't know the prices that would emerge from people's various valuations for each star. Without the coordinating element of prices, you won't get equilibrium. Supply and demand will be all over the place.

So, now we're getting back to my point about constantly changing (a) the star prices of tournaments and/or (b) conversion rates of star-crafting in accord with the changing supplies and demands of different stars.


With the random generator alone, this is easier. (A).

With the random generator + star-crafting, this becomes more difficult (because you'd need to be constantly changing the rules over star-crafting in order to 'fine tune' it). (B)

Without a Star Exchange, this 'fine-tuning' becomes chaotic because there's no market prices to equilibrate the supply and demand of each star. You'd be missing a necessary feedback mechanism, thus (B) becomes a "shooting in the dark" policy. (A) is "less shooting in the dark" because there's less 'moving parts'.

So if you want star-crafting, you should go with (D) because the Star Exchange is easier to manage and will do the heavy-lifting for you. When you want to change conversion rates, it'll provide the prices for you, so you don't have to shoot in the dark--e.g. by using arbitrary conversion tables (a la Soviet Union).

With a functioning Star Exchange and with a functioning Star-Crafting (D), you can do more fun things while reducing CC administration costs. This would also enable more possibilities. If you do with (B) or (C)--implement star-crafting and ignore/underestimate problems, then you'll get a much more dysfunctional system, higher administrative costs, and less options to do more fun things. (A) is status quo, and it's probably the cheapest in admin. costs, but it provides the least opportunities.